Research Suggests 'CS For All' May Mean Lower Pay For All

theodp writes: The NY Times reports that new research suggests as women take over a male-dominated field, the pay drops. "A striking example," writes Claire Cain Miller, "is to be found in the field of recreation — working in parks or leading camps — which went from predominantly male to female from 1950 to 2000. Median hourly wages in this field declined 57 percentage points, accounting for the change in the value of the dollar, according to a complex formula used by Professor Levanon. The job of ticket agent also went from mainly male to female during this period, and wages dropped 43 percentage points. The same thing happened when women in large numbers became designers (wages fell 34 percentage points), housekeepers (wages fell 21 percentage points) and biologists (wages fell 18 percentage points). The reverse was true when a job attracted more men. Computer programming, for instance, used to be a relatively menial role done by women. But when male programmers began to outnumber female ones, the job began paying more and gained prestige." Addressing concerns raised about gender pay equity in tech, Amazon recently told the SEC to get off its case, explaining that it's working with organizations such as Code.org, the Anita Borg Institute and Girls Who Code to increase women's involvement in the technology industry. But even if such efforts achieve pay parity, will CS for All result in lower pay for all?

Comments

Did Ric Romero leave fark

[rsilvergun]

and start submitting stories to /.? No kidding. That's the _point_. If you haven't figured that out by now you haven't been paying attention.

The more interesting question is will people ever notice that the 1% does stuff like this? Every time the rich target an industry for lower wages I'm baffled that folks pretend like it's not happening. They tell me I'm a conspiracy loon because the idea that somebody might think 10 or 20 years down the line is nuts because well, they don't think that far down the line so why should anybody else?

This is kinda why workers formed Unions folks. The 1% are _always_ looking for ways to stop paying you. You know how you look for ways to save money on your day-to-day expenses? You clip coupons, they depress wages. Basically the same thing.

Re: Supply and Demand

[mikael]

Maybe women like to work part-time and choose the hours they want to work. Working as a nurse required working shifts with hours like evening (2pm to 10pm), night (10pm to 6am), afternoon (6am to 2pm). Some days, they would have to do double shifts, sometimes they would get a day or two off. Hairdressers get to do the same.

There was a political issues in one village where the local mothers used to be able to work part-time at a large hotel. They could cover for each other if someone needed an afternoon off to take the children to the doctor. But when new countries joined the EU, the hotel owners preferred to employ East European workers who lived in the top rooms and worked full-time.

When?

[tandavanadesan]

Computer programming, for instance, used to be a relatively menial role done by women.

When was this ever the case? The first programmers were mostly engineers, the designers of the systems, and mightily male.

Re:SJW crap

[superwiz]

"I've never found a woman coworker to be even half as passionate about technology and computers as I am."

+5 for this misogynist crap?

While it does seem like he is implying a sweeping generalization based on his personal experience, he does stop short of actually making such a generalization. So his response is less knee-jerk than yours.

Re: Supply and Demand

[tsotha]

There are lots of jobs in the US where you can influence your hours. Back when I had menial jobs I could (and did) swap shifts with the other employees as long as the manager was okay with it.